"Commentary from P.M. Carpenter"

July 12, 2017

Because of Republicans' indecisiveness, Democrats get to decide

The all-consuming question that now hovers over the Emerald City is not whether Trump Inc. will continue to criminally lie, bamboozle and bullshit, since bullshitting bamboozlement is the sole operando of Trump Inc. No, the big, indeed biggest, question is whether congressional Republicans will break from their heretofore unbroken bamboozlement and publicly concede that the Trump organization — temporarily known as the White House — possesses the ethical rectitude of the Gambino crime family, and deserves the same fate: a barrage of prosecutions and a singular strike of kingpin removal.

The answer to that question depends on whom one listens to, or reads. Yesterday, I heard the question put to Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, who answered that his GOP colleagues weren't quite there; they remained in the first stage of grief — denial. I later heard the same question put to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, who intimated a noticeable groundswell of GOP disgruntlement. You are, then, welcome to take your pick — a choice that depends on your confidence in congressional Republicans ever displaying a tendency toward human decency.

This morning I scoured the NY Times for a definitive answer, only to be torn, again, betwixt the Murphean and Swalwellian competing responses. In Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman's above-the-fold account, "Rancor at White House as Russia Story Refuses to Let the Page Turn," the Times reporters somewhat encouragingly wrote that "Republicans in Congress made little effort to defend the White House, and some expressed concern." The reporters' empirical justification for this declaration? One lone GOP congressman (New York's Lee Zeldin), who had tweeted: "I voted for @POTUS last Nov. & want him & USA to succeed, but that meeting, given that email chain just released, is a big no-no." Perhaps others, anonymously, ventured similar disgust.

I then turned to the NYT's Matt Flegenheimer (which, incidentally, having spoken of organized crime, was Dutch Schultz's patronymic) and Emmarie Huetteman's report, which seemed to offer more conclusiveness: "'Not Right Now': Republicans and the Art of Not Talking About Trump." Indeed, the reporters' summation of Republican reactions appeared conclusive enough: "Haven’t seen it. Couldn’t tell you. Ask my office." Continued the Times reporters: "The response from Republicans, at least initially, followed a familiar pattern: Approached for comment about Donald Trump Jr.’s email exchange and meeting, most senators declined to engage, expressed confusion about the questions or searched for plausible justifications for the conduct." That is, they "generally retreated to form on Tuesday when confronted with the extraordinary latest."

"Not right now," said one GOP senator. "Talk to others about politics," said another. The winner of truly amusing evasiveness was, however, Sen. Orrin Hatch, who said "it spoke well of the president that his children loved him so much even though 'he divorced their mothers.'" Touching, is it not? Even more touching is that Tom, Joe, and Carlo Jr. never had to love Daddy Gambino in the same way.

Still, even Flegenheimer and Huetteman's report contained Swalwellian responses. On "matters of Russia," Sen. Lindsey Graham said "They’re problematic on its face," and Lindsey's twin, John McCain, said the entire Trumpian mess is "a classic scandal" in which "more shoes will drop."

All we can actually conclude, after listening and reading to various sources, is that the Republican Party as an opinion-monolith is no more. This became apparent during the health-care debacle, as conservatives split from moderates and moderates despaired of conservatives. It'll become even more apparent as a debt-ceiling crisis descends. For now, there is no one Republican opinion on the whole Trump Inc. calamity — which is good for Democrats, in that they can choose to frame the opposition as monolithically in support of the vastly unpopular Donald Trump.

Comments

Because of Republicans' indecisiveness, Democrats get to decide

The all-consuming question that now hovers over the Emerald City is not whether Trump Inc. will continue to criminally lie, bamboozle and bullshit, since bullshitting bamboozlement is the sole operando of Trump Inc. No, the big, indeed biggest, question is whether congressional Republicans will break from their heretofore unbroken bamboozlement and publicly concede that the Trump organization — temporarily known as the White House — possesses the ethical rectitude of the Gambino crime family, and deserves the same fate: a barrage of prosecutions and a singular strike of kingpin removal.

The answer to that question depends on whom one listens to, or reads. Yesterday, I heard the question put to Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, who answered that his GOP colleagues weren't quite there; they remained in the first stage of grief — denial. I later heard the same question put to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, who intimated a noticeable groundswell of GOP disgruntlement. You are, then, welcome to take your pick — a choice that depends on your confidence in congressional Republicans ever displaying a tendency toward human decency.

This morning I scoured the NY Times for a definitive answer, only to be torn, again, betwixt the Murphean and Swalwellian competing responses. In Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman's above-the-fold account, "Rancor at White House as Russia Story Refuses to Let the Page Turn," the Times reporters somewhat encouragingly wrote that "Republicans in Congress made little effort to defend the White House, and some expressed concern." The reporters' empirical justification for this declaration? One lone GOP congressman (New York's Lee Zeldin), who had tweeted: "I voted for @POTUS last Nov. & want him & USA to succeed, but that meeting, given that email chain just released, is a big no-no." Perhaps others, anonymously, ventured similar disgust.

I then turned to the NYT's Matt Flegenheimer (which, incidentally, having spoken of organized crime, was Dutch Schultz's patronymic) and Emmarie Huetteman's report, which seemed to offer more conclusiveness: "'Not Right Now': Republicans and the Art of Not Talking About Trump." Indeed, the reporters' summation of Republican reactions appeared conclusive enough: "Haven’t seen it. Couldn’t tell you. Ask my office." Continued the Times reporters: "The response from Republicans, at least initially, followed a familiar pattern: Approached for comment about Donald Trump Jr.’s email exchange and meeting, most senators declined to engage, expressed confusion about the questions or searched for plausible justifications for the conduct." That is, they "generally retreated to form on Tuesday when confronted with the extraordinary latest."

"Not right now," said one GOP senator. "Talk to others about politics," said another. The winner of truly amusing evasiveness was, however, Sen. Orrin Hatch, who said "it spoke well of the president that his children loved him so much even though 'he divorced their mothers.'" Touching, is it not? Even more touching is that Tom, Joe, and Carlo Jr. never had to love Daddy Gambino in the same way.

Still, even Flegenheimer and Huetteman's report contained Swalwellian responses. On "matters of Russia," Sen. Lindsey Graham said "They’re problematic on its face," and Lindsey's twin, John McCain, said the entire Trumpian mess is "a classic scandal" in which "more shoes will drop."

All we can actually conclude, after listening and reading to various sources, is that the Republican Party as an opinion-monolith is no more. This became apparent during the health-care debacle, as conservatives split from moderates and moderates despaired of conservatives. It'll become even more apparent as a debt-ceiling crisis descends. For now, there is no one Republican opinion on the whole Trump Inc. calamity — which is good for Democrats, in that they can choose to frame the opposition as monolithically in support of the vastly unpopular Donald Trump.